133 Responses

You really believe [speaking truth to power] is in any way the role of the Herald (or any other NZ newspaper)?

They *are* the 'power'. The newspapers support the government, the government supports the newspapers.

Exactly. It's a form of patronage. The ideal of an independent and impartial fourth estate seems very quaint at this historical juncture. Do many journalists in the privately owned media actually believe this is their role? I've always assumed they didn't, simply because the day-to-day nature of their jobs would disabuse them of any notions pretty quickly, but I'd be interested to know.

I'm not totally disinterested here, given Drinnan's inexplicable (and one-sided) feud with our host and my friend, but it would be wise to take everything he says with a grain of salt and added tequila to taste.

Personally, I wouldn’t promote someone who was (I suspect) forced by APN’s laywers to sign his name to this.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the then-editor of the Herald on Sunday admitted running a story with fabricated direct quotes. Call me old fashioned, but I rather like direct, attributed quotes to have been demonstrably said by the person they’re attributed to.

Whether there has been any political interference is neither here nor there.

The question is whether a politically appointed funding agency should be involved in documentaries.

Oh, sod off Drinnan – So, political interference is “neither here nor there” but you’ll keep implying it regardless? The real question is whether Drinnan, and his employer, really have much moral high ground to posture on here. It’s not as if The Herald’s effective monopoly in the Auckland newspaper market has had a great track record of elevating political discourse.

ETA: To be fair, Drinnan and The Herald have long had an ideological hard on against public funding of broadcasting - and it's not hard to see why APN isn't exactly disinterested when it comes to chipping at direct competition for viewers and advertising in a tight marketplace. But wouldn't it be nice if they'd just come out and spare us all the passive-aggressive concern trolling.

We hear "if not" more, because most questions are asking if the minister agrees/supports a previous position that the questioner believes is false, with the intention of getting the minister to admit they were previously wrong/lying. The "if not, why?" invites them to dig their hole a little deeper.

As you are aware Russell - I have been really anal about the use of Cumes for a long time now. Cumes have been bandied around willy nilly by some ( usually smaller ) channels and or producers without a real understanding of what they are or what they really mean. I even heard the media commentator on Nat. Rad just recently using them in the wrong context! I really don't think you can blame Coleman for his interpretation of the figures because even if he DID calculate them incorrectly, the industry people quoting these figs should have known that Nielsens ( to the best of my knowledge) only produce monthlies!

Framing advantage. Propose a positive -- preferably something no reasonable person could disagree with -- and then ask your foes to explain why they didn't do it (no matter how impossible or unreasonable or ridiculous the proposition actually is). It forces your opponent into a defensive discourse, arguing on negative grounds generally not of their own choosing.

Jesus, would it have killed Drinnan to acknowledge Tom Frewen’s work in single-handedly breaking these stories?

Yes? I'll own that the way Drinnan's treated you is a biasing factor, but he's chronically careless with facts and has a nasty habit of cherry-picking other people's work without attribution or credit. But, hell, why should he have to try harder - and do better - when he has zero competition?

The question is whether a politically appointed funding agency should be involved in documentaries.

I confused. Isn't one answer to the present concerns about the disappearance of public broadcasting that NZ on Air funding is available to make public interest programmes? and aren't documentaries kinda at the core of that description?

and I may be a misinformed member of the general public, but the notion of NZ on Air as a politically coloured entity of any kind is a pretty new one, brought about by recent actions by its members.

I thought you handled the dual role of moderator/interested party incredibly well – especially when you volunteered information about the listings issue.

It just made me realise how pissed off I am with the whole host-as-every-man-stand-in-for-uninformed-audience approach in current affairs shows, as exemplified by (but not restricted to) “Walrus” Sainsbury on Closeup.

When did it become so unusual for a host to demonstrate knowledge/research of the subject in an interview? I feel like we’re frogs that have been sitting in a pot of slowly boiling cluelessness.

and I may be a misinformed member of the general public, but the notion of NZ on Air as a politically coloured entity of any kind is a pretty new one, brought about by recent actions by its members.

The board of New Zealand on Air have always been "political appointments" in the sense that it is a government funding agency with a responsible minister. "Political interference" is a very different -and extremely serious - beast, and if Drinnan doesn't know that he shouldn't be writing about the media. It's certainly not good enough for him to say it doesn't really matter, while implying exactly that.

The decision might not hinge on the data, but the political sale-job will. Govt decides to do X for whatever reason. Nobody's paying attention. Announces X along with some bogus stat that justifies the decision. Minor perking up of ears, bogus stat seems to make sense, everybody goes back to X-factor. Bogus stats are the bane of this country: serious thin-market problems.